{"id":27567,"date":"2026-07-09T08:26:28","date_gmt":"2026-07-09T08:26:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=27567"},"modified":"2026-07-09T08:29:07","modified_gmt":"2026-07-09T08:29:07","slug":"supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: BLENDER&#8217;S PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE (2025 INSC 981) | Anti-Dissection Rule Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 id=\"h-pernod-ricard-india-pvt-ltd-v-karanveer-singh-chhabra-2025-insc-981-supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-passing-off-and-the-pride-trademark\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Pernod_Ricard_India_Pvt_Ltd_v_Karanveer_Singh_Chhabra_2025_INSC_981_Supreme_Court_on_Trademark_Infringement_Passing_Off_and_the_%E2%80%9CPride%E2%80%9D_Trademark\"><\/span>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 INSC 981): Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, and the &#8220;Pride&#8221; Trademark<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>2025 INSC 981 | Supreme Court of India | Decision dated 14 August 2025<\/strong><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-1'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Pernod_Ricard_India_Pvt_Ltd_v_Karanveer_Singh_Chhabra_2025_INSC_981_Supreme_Court_on_Trademark_Infringement_Passing_Off_and_the_%E2%80%9CPride%E2%80%9D_Trademark\" >Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 INSC 981): Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, and the &#8220;Pride&#8221; Trademark<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-2' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Abstract\" >Abstract<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Background_of_the_Trademark_Dispute\" >Background of the Trademark Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Key_Legal_Principles_Discussed\" >Key Legal Principles Discussed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Quick_Case_Summary\" >Quick Case Summary<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Facts_of_the_Case\" >Facts of the Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Institution_of_Commercial_Suit\" >Institution of Commercial Suit<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Application_for_Interim_Injunction\" >Application for Interim Injunction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Respondents_Defence\" >Respondent&#8217;s Defence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Summary_of_the_Factual_Background\" >Summary of the Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Factual_Matrix_Before_the_Courts\" >Factual Matrix Before the Courts<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Procedural_History_of_the_Case\" >Procedural History of the Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Proceedings_Before_the_Commercial_Court\" >Proceedings Before the Commercial Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Appeal_Before_the_High_Court\" >Appeal Before the High Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Appeal_Before_the_Supreme_Court\" >Appeal Before the Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Procedural_History_at_a_Glance\" >Procedural History at a Glance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Key_Issues_Before_the_Supreme_Court\" >Key Issues Before the Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Issues_for_Determination\" >Issues for Determination<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Issue_1_Trademark_Infringement_and_Deceptive_Similarity\" >Issue 1: Trademark Infringement and Deceptive Similarity<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Issue_2_Passing_Off_Under_Common_Law\" >Issue 2: Passing Off Under Common Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Issue_3_Appellate_Review_of_Interim_Injunction\" >Issue 3: Appellate Review of Interim Injunction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Summary_of_Issues_Before_the_Supreme_Court\" >Summary of Issues Before the Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Judicial_Reasoning\" >Judicial Reasoning<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Application_of_the_Anti-Dissection_Rule\" >Application of the Anti-Dissection Rule<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Application_of_the_Dominant_Feature_Test\" >Application of the Dominant Feature Test<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Assessment_of_Likelihood_of_Consumer_Confusion\" >Assessment of Likelihood of Consumer Confusion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Comparison_of_Packaging_and_Trade_Dress\" >Comparison of Packaging and Trade Dress<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Key_Findings_of_the_Supreme_Court\" >Key Findings of the Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Interim_Injunction_and_Appellate_Interference\" >Interim Injunction and Appellate Interference<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Principles_Governing_Interim_Injunctions\" >Principles Governing Interim Injunctions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Importance_of_Judicial_Restraint_in_Trademark_Disputes\" >Importance of Judicial Restraint in Trademark Disputes<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Critical_Analysis\" >Critical Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Policy_Perspective_and_Commercial_Significance\" >Policy Perspective and Commercial Significance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Key_Takeaways_From_the_Judgment\" >Key Takeaways From the Judgment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-37\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Table_of_Key_Legal_Principles\" >Table of Key Legal Principles<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-38\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#References\" >References<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-39\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Key_Takeaways\" >Key Takeaways<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-40\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Summary_of_Key_Legal_Principles\" >Summary of Key Legal Principles<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-41\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#Highlights\" >Highlights<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-abstract\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Abstract\"><\/span>Abstract<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This case analysis examines the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/em> concerning trademark infringement and passing off under Indian law. The judgement clarifies the application of the anti-dissection rule, dominant feature test, and the doctrine of <em>publici juris<\/em> in determining deceptive similarity between trademarks. The court held that the common use of the laudatory word \u201cPRIDE\u201d could not confer exclusive rights upon the appellant and found no likelihood of consumer confusion between \u201cBLENDERS PRIDE\u201d and \u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d. The decision reinforces fair competition, consumer perception, and judicial restraint in granting interlocutory trademark injunctions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision of the Supreme Court of India in <em>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd v. Karanveer Singh <\/em>Chhabra [1] constitutes a significant reaffirmation of settled principles governing trademark infringement and passing off under Indian law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute arose from the appellants\u2019 attempt to restrain the respondent from using the trademark \u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d for whisky, alleging infringement of their registered trademarks \u201cBLENDERS PRIDE\u201d, \u201cIMPERIAL BLUE\u201d, and \u201cSEAGRAM\u2019S\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement assumes importance not merely for its outcome but for its methodical articulation of the anti-dissection rule, the dominant feature test, the doctrine of <em>publici juris<\/em>, and the standards governing appellate interference with interlocutory orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court&#8217;s refusal to grant interim injunctive relief reflects a balanced approach between trademark protection and the prevention of unwarranted monopoly over common or laudatory expressions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-background-of-the-trademark-dispute\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Background_of_the_Trademark_Dispute\"><\/span>Background of the Trademark Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Viewed against the backdrop of earlier trademark disputes involving the appellants, the judgement also reflects a growing judicial reluctance to permit incremental expansion of trademark monopolies through repeated interlocutory litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court was cognisant of the fact that Pernod Ricard had previously failed in similar attempts to assert exclusivity over the word \u201cPRIDE\u201d, most notably in litigation concerning the mark \u201cRoyal Challenge American Pride\u201d. [2]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By situating the present dispute within this broader litigation history, the Court implicitly addressed concerns of consistency, estoppel, and judicial economy. [3]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This contextual sensitivity strengthens the judgement&#8217;s normative force, signalling that trademark protection cannot be pursued in a piecemeal or opportunistic manner by isolating generic elements across multiple proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that trademark law must remain anchored to consumer perception and commercial reality, rather than being transformed into a tool for suppressing legitimate competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-legal-principles-discussed\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_Discussed\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles Discussed<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Anti-dissection rule<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dominant feature test<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Doctrine of <em>publici juris<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trademark infringement under Indian law<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Passing off<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consumer perception and deceptive similarity<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Judicial restraint in granting interlocutory injunctions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Fair competition in trademark law<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-quick-case-summary\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Quick_Case_Summary\"><\/span>Quick Case Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Case Name<\/td><td>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Citation<\/td><td>2025 INSC 981<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Court<\/td><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Decision Date<\/td><td>14 August 2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Core Issue<\/td><td>Trademark infringement and passing off relating to the use of the mark &#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Appellant&#8217;s Marks<\/td><td>&#8220;BLENDERS PRIDE&#8221;, &#8220;IMPERIAL BLUE&#8221;, and &#8220;SEAGRAM&#8217;S&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Respondent&#8217;s Mark<\/td><td>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Key Findings<\/td><td>No exclusive right over the laudatory word &#8220;PRIDE&#8221;; no likelihood of consumer confusion.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Important Doctrines<\/td><td>Anti-dissection rule, dominant feature test, doctrine of <em>publici juris<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-facts-of-the-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_the_Case\"><\/span>Facts of the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellants, Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd., are a prominent multinational entity engaged in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of alcoholic beverages in India. Over the years, the appellants have acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the Indian liquor market through the extensive use of several registered trademarks, most notably <strong>\u201cBLENDERS PRIDE\u201d<\/strong>, <strong>\u201cIMPERIAL BLUE\u201d<\/strong>, and <strong>\u201cSEAGRAM\u2019S\u201d<\/strong>, all of which are registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in respect of whisky and allied alcoholic products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These trademarks have been in continuous commercial use for a considerable period and are widely distributed across India through authorised channels, subject to statutory and regulatory restrictions applicable to liquor advertising.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellants\u2019 grievance arose upon discovering that the respondent, Karanveer Singh Chhabra, had commenced the manufacture and sale of whisky under the trademark <strong>\u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the appellants, the respondent\u2019s product was being marketed in packaging and trade dress that bore similarities to their own, particularly with respect to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The use of the word <strong>\u201cPRIDE\u201d<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The colour scheme comprising shades of blue and gold.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The placement of branding elements on the label.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The overall visual presentation of the bottle and outer carton.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellants alleged that these similarities were calculated to mislead consumers into believing that the respondent\u2019s product was associated with, or originated from, the appellants\u2019 well-known portfolio of brands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-institution-of-commercial-suit\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Institution_of_Commercial_Suit\"><\/span>Institution of Commercial Suit<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On this basis, the appellants instituted Civil Suit No. 3 of 2020 before the Commercial Court, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or otherwise dealing in whisky under the mark <strong>\u201cLONDON PRIDE<\/strong>&#8220;<strong>\u201d<\/strong>,&#8221; or any other mark deceptively similar to the appellants\u2019 registered trademarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellants also sought ancillary reliefs, including the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Delivery of infringing material.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rendition of accounts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Damages for alleged infringement and passing off.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-application-for-interim-injunction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_for_Interim_Injunction\"><\/span>Application for Interim Injunction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Pending the adjudication of the suit, the appellants filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [4], seeking an interim injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It was contended that the continued use of the impugned mark during the pendency of the suit would:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Result in irreparable injury to the appellants\u2019 goodwill and reputation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dilute the distinctiveness of their trademarks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Cause confusion among consumers of whisky.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellants asserted the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>They had established a strong <em>prima facie<\/em> case of infringement and passing off.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The balance of convenience lay in their favour.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Damages would not be an adequate remedy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-respondent-s-defence\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Defence\"><\/span>Respondent&#8217;s Defence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent opposed the application, contending that the mark <strong>\u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d<\/strong> was neither identical nor deceptively similar to any of the appellants\u2019 registered trademarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It was asserted that the word <strong>\u201cPRIDE\u201d<\/strong> is a common and laudatory term widely used in the liquor industry and incapable of exclusive appropriation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent further maintained that the overall packaging, bottle shape, labels, logos, and visual presentation of <strong>\u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d<\/strong> were materially distinct from those of the appellants\u2019 products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It was also argued that consumers of premium and ultra-premium whisky are discerning and purchase such products with a higher degree of care, thereby negating any likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-summary-of-the-factual-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Summary_of_the_Factual_Background\"><\/span>Summary of the Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Particular<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Appellants<\/td><td>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Respondent<\/td><td>Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Disputed Trademark<\/td><td>\u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Registered Trademarks Relied Upon<\/td><td>\u201cBLENDERS PRIDE\u201d, \u201cIMPERIAL BLUE\u201d, and \u201cSEAGRAM\u2019S\u201d<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Nature of Suit<\/td><td>Trademark infringement and passing off<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Principal Relief Sought<\/td><td>Permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing material, rendition of accounts, and damages<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Interim Relief Sought<\/td><td>Temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [4]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-factual-matrix-before-the-courts\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Matrix_Before_the_Courts\"><\/span>Factual Matrix Before the Courts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These competing claims formed the factual matrix upon which the Commercial Court was called upon to decide the appellants\u2019 application for interim injunction, ultimately leading to the concurrent findings of the Commercial Court, the High Court, and finally the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-procedural-history-of-the-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_History_of_the_Case\"><\/span>Procedural History of the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute between the parties was first brought before the Commercial Court (district judge level) at Indore, where the appellants instituted Commercial Suit No. 3 of 2020, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from using the trademark <strong>\u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d<\/strong>, along with ancillary reliefs including delivery up of infringing material, rendition of accounts, and damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Pending the final adjudication of the suit, the appellants filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an interim injunction on the ground that the respondent\u2019s mark and trade dress infringed their registered trademarks and amounted to passing off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-proceedings-before-the-commercial-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Proceedings_Before_the_Commercial_Court\"><\/span>Proceedings Before the Commercial Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Upon a detailed examination of the rival marks, labels, packaging, and bottle designs, the Commercial Court dismissed the application for interim relief. The Court held that the only common element between the competing marks was the word <strong>\u201cPRIDE\u201d<\/strong>, which it characterised as a common, laudatory expression incapable of exclusive appropriation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It further found that the overall trade dress, colour scheme, bottle shape, and visual presentation of the products were sufficiently distinct so as to negate any likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appeal-before-the-high-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appeal_Before_the_High_Court\"><\/span>Appeal Before the High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Aggrieved by the refusal of interim relief, the appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore under the provisions governing appeals from orders of the Commercial Court. The High Court, by its judgement dated 3 November 2023, affirmed the findings of the Commercial Court and dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court concurred with the view that the appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement or passing off, emphasising that trademark comparison must be based on the overall impression of the marks rather than isolated similarities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court also observed that consumers of premium and ultra-premium whisky are generally discerning and brand-conscious and therefore unlikely to be misled by the respondent\u2019s use of the mark <strong>\u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d<\/strong>. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the discretionary order of the Commercial Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appeal-before-the-supreme-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appeal_Before_the_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Appeal Before the Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of the courts below, the appellants approached the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution<sup>[5]<\/sup>, which was subsequently granted, resulting in the present civil appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court was thus called upon to examine the correctness of the refusal of an interim injunction, the application of settled trademark principles by the courts below, and the permissible scope of appellate interference with discretionary interlocutory orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-procedural-history-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_History_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>Procedural History at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Stage<\/th><th>Court<\/th><th>Proceeding<\/th><th>Outcome<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Stage 1<\/td><td>Commercial Court, Indore<\/td><td>Commercial Suit No. 3 of 2020 and application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC<\/td><td>The interim injunction was dismissed; the court held that &#8220;PRIDE&#8221; is a common laudatory word and the competing trade dress was sufficiently distinct.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Stage 2<\/td><td>High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench<\/td><td>Appeal against refusal of interim injunction<\/td><td>Appeal dismissed on 3 November 2023; findings of the Commercial Court affirmed.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Stage 3<\/td><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><td>Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution<\/td><td>Leave granted; matter converted into the present civil appeal.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-issues-before-the-supreme-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Issues_Before_the_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Key Issues Before the Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the refusal of interim injunction by the courts below was legally justified.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the settled principles governing trademark infringement and passing off were correctly applied.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the competing marks and trade dress created a likelihood of consumer confusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether appellate interference with discretionary interlocutory orders was warranted in the facts of the case.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-issues-for-determination\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_for_Determination\"><\/span>Issues for Determination<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The controversy before the Supreme Court necessitated a careful examination of both substantive and procedural questions arising under trademark law. [6]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-issue-1-trademark-infringement-and-deceptive-similarity\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issue_1_Trademark_Infringement_and_Deceptive_Similarity\"><\/span>Issue 1: Trademark Infringement and Deceptive Similarity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The first and primary issue was whether the respondent\u2019s use of the mark <strong>\u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d<\/strong> was deceptively similar to the appellants\u2019 registered trademarks, namely <strong>\u201cBLENDERS PRIDE\u201d<\/strong>, <strong>\u201cIMPERIAL BLUE\u201d<\/strong>, and <strong>\u201cSEAGRAM\u2019S\u201d<\/strong>, so as to constitute infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This issue required the Court to interpret and apply the statutory standard of <strong>\u201cdeceptive similarity\u201d<\/strong> under Sections 2(1)(h) and 29 of the Act and to determine whether the impugned mark, when viewed as a whole, was likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers. [7]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-issue-2-passing-off-under-common-law\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issue_2_Passing_Off_Under_Common_Law\"><\/span>Issue 2: Passing Off Under Common Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The second issue concerned whether the respondent\u2019s conduct amounted to passing off under common law, independent of statutory infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This involved assessing whether the appellants had established the classic trinity of passing off, namely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Goodwill in their marks;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Misrepresentation by the respondent; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Likelihood of damage to such goodwill. [8]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In particular, the Court was required to consider whether the use of a common laudatory term, coupled with alleged similarities in trade dress and packaging, could give rise to actionable misrepresentation in the absence of clear evidence of consumer confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-issue-3-appellate-review-of-interim-injunction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issue_3_Appellate_Review_of_Interim_Injunction\"><\/span>Issue 3: Appellate Review of Interim Injunction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The third issue was whether the concurrent refusal of an interim injunction by the Commercial Court and the High Court warranted appellate interference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This raised an important procedural question regarding the scope and limits of appellate review in interlocutory matters. The Court had to determine whether the discretion exercised by the courts below was arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to settled legal principles governing interim relief, thereby justifying interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-summary-of-issues-before-the-supreme-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Summary_of_Issues_Before_the_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Summary of Issues Before the Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Question Before the Court<\/th><th>Relevant Legal Principle<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Trademark Infringement<\/td><td>Whether &#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221; was deceptively similar to the appellants&#8217; registered marks.<\/td><td>Sections 2(1)(h) and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Passing Off<\/td><td>Whether the respondent&#8217;s conduct amounted to passing off under common law.<\/td><td>Goodwill, Misrepresentation, and Damage<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Appellate Review<\/td><td>Whether refusal of an interim injunction required interference under Article 136.<\/td><td>Principles governing appellate review of interlocutory orders<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-judicial-reasoning\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Reasoning\"><\/span>Judicial Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court undertook an extensive and methodical review of settled trademark jurisprudence, reiterating that the correct approach to assessing deceptive similarity is to compare competing marks as a whole, rather than dissecting them into isolated components.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-application-of-the-anti-dissection-rule\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_of_the_Anti-Dissection_Rule\"><\/span>Application of the Anti-Dissection Rule<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court rejected the appellants\u2019 attempt to isolate and claim exclusivity over the word <strong>\u201cPRIDE\u201d<\/strong>, observing that trademark protection does not extend to individual elements of a composite mark unless such elements are independently distinctive or have acquired secondary meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court emphasised that such piecemeal analysis is inconsistent with how consumers perceive trademarks in real-world purchasing conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-application-of-the-dominant-feature-test\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_of_the_Dominant_Feature_Test\"><\/span>Application of the Dominant Feature Test<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In conjunction with the anti-dissection principle, the Court applied the dominant feature test to identify whether any essential or prominent element of the appellants\u2019 marks had been appropriated by the respondent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It concluded that in the composite marks <strong>\u201cBLENDERS PRIDE\u201d<\/strong> and <strong>\u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d<\/strong>, the dominant and source-identifying elements were <strong>\u201cBLENDERS\u201d<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;LONDON&#8221;,<\/strong> respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These elements were found to be visually, phonetically, and conceptually distinct, conveying entirely different commercial impressions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The shared use of the word <strong>\u201cPRIDE\u201d<\/strong>, being a common and laudatory term widely used in the liquor trade, was held to be insufficient to establish deceptive similarity or misappropriation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-assessment-of-likelihood-of-consumer-confusion\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Assessment_of_Likelihood_of_Consumer_Confusion\"><\/span>Assessment of Likelihood of Consumer Confusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further reiterated that the likelihood of confusion must be assessed from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, taking into account:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The nature of the goods;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The class of purchasers; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The conditions of purchase.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the present case, the goods in question were premium and ultra-premium whiskies, typically purchased by consumers who exercise a relatively higher degree of care and brand consciousness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court noted that such consumers are likely to identify products by their complete brand names and overall presentation rather than by a single common word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-comparison-of-packaging-and-trade-dress\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparison_of_Packaging_and_Trade_Dress\"><\/span>Comparison of Packaging and Trade Dress<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Upon examining the packaging, bottle shape, colour scheme, labels, and logos of the competing products, the Court found no similarity capable of misleading an average consumer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement or passing off and that no likelihood of confusion arose from the respondent\u2019s use of the mark <strong>\u201cLONDON PRIDE\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-findings-of-the-supreme-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Findings_of_the_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Key Findings of the Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Legal Principle<\/th><th>Supreme Court&#8217;s Finding<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Anti-Dissection Rule<\/td><td>Composite trademarks must be compared as a whole.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Dominant Feature Test<\/td><td>&#8220;BLENDERS&#8221; and &#8220;LONDON&#8221; were the dominant identifying elements.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Use of &#8220;PRIDE&#8221;<\/td><td>A common laudatory term cannot by itself establish infringement.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Consumer Perspective<\/td><td>Premium whisky buyers exercise greater care while making purchasing decisions.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trade Dress Comparison<\/td><td>No deceptive similarity was found in packaging, labels, bottle shape, colours, or logos.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Final Conclusion<\/td><td>No prima facie case of trademark infringement or passing off was established.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court\u2019s reasoning reflects a balanced and pragmatic application of trademark principles, grounded in consumer perception and commercial reality, rather than abstract or speculative claims of similarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-interim-injunction-and-appellate-interference\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interim_Injunction_and_Appellate_Interference\"><\/span>Interim Injunction and Appellate Interference<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Relying on precedents such as <em>Wander Ltd v. Antox India (P) <\/em>Ltd [9] and <em>Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar <\/em>Prasad [10], the Court reiterated that appellate courts must exercise restraint while interfering with discretionary orders granting or refusing interim injunctions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Interference is warranted only where the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely. Finding no such infirmity in the decisions of the courts below, the Supreme Court declined to substitute its own discretion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This approach reflects the settled position that interlocutory proceedings are intended only to preserve the status quo pending final adjudication and are not meant to result in a determination of substantive rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-principles-governing-interim-injunctions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Principles_Governing_Interim_Injunctions\"><\/span>Principles Governing Interim Injunctions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court emphasised that a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm must be assessed cautiously at this stage, without embarking upon a mini-trial on merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Principle<\/th><th>Court&#8217;s Observation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Prima Facie Case<\/td><td>Must be assessed cautiously without deciding the merits.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Balance of Convenience<\/td><td>The court should weigh competing interests before granting interim relief.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Irreparable Harm<\/td><td>The applicant must demonstrate harm that cannot be adequately compensated later.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Appellate Review<\/td><td>Interference is justified only when discretion is exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-importance-of-judicial-restraint-in-trademark-disputes\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Importance_of_Judicial_Restraint_in_Trademark_Disputes\"><\/span>Importance of Judicial Restraint in Trademark Disputes<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In intellectual property disputes, particularly those involving trademarks, undue interference at the appellate stage risks converting interim relief into de facto final relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By affirming judicial restraint, the Court reinforced procedural discipline and encouraged expeditious resolution of the underlying suit rather than prolonged interlocutory litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-critical-analysis\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Critical_Analysis\"><\/span>Critical Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement is commendable for its clarity and consistency with established trademark principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It prevents the dilution of competition by disallowing monopolisation of generic or laudatory terms, thereby safeguarding market fairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At the same time, the decision underscores the evidentiary burden on trademark proprietors seeking expansive protection beyond the registered mark as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By reaffirming the centrality of consumer perception and market context, the Court avoids elevating brand reputation into an automatic entitlement to exclusivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The reasoning also promotes predictability in trademark enforcement, which is essential for maintaining commercial certainty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Further, the decision implicitly discourages aggressive brand enforcement strategies that rely on overbroad interpretations of composite marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, critics may argue that the Court could have engaged more deeply with the evolving doctrine of post-sale confusion, particularly in branding-intensive industries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nevertheless, the Court correctly confined its analysis to the facts at hand and avoided unnecessary doctrinal expansion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-policy-perspective-and-commercial-significance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Policy_Perspective_and_Commercial_Significance\"><\/span>Policy Perspective and Commercial Significance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From a policy perspective, the decision strikes an appropriate balance between proprietary rights and competitive freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>It resists claims founded on isolated or non-distinctive elements of composite trademarks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It reaffirms that trademark law is not a mechanism for market foreclosure.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It clarifies that goodwill in a composite mark does not automatically confer exclusivity over every constituent element.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It promotes doctrinal stability while preserving commercial realism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement also sends a clear signal to brand owners that extensive goodwill in composite marks does not automatically translate into exclusivity over each constituent element.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">While future cases may warrant deeper engagement with post-sale confusion and brand dilution, the Court\u2019s fact-sensitive approach in the present case ensures doctrinal stability without sacrificing commercial realism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-conclusion\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/em> reaffirms the foundational principles governing trademark infringement and passing off under Indian law, particularly the protection of distinctive indicators of trade origin as opposed to common or laudatory expressions. By upholding the concurrent refusal of interim injunctive relief, the Court clarified that trademark protection cannot be extended to generic components of composite marks unless such elements have demonstrably acquired secondary meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement&#8217;s careful application of the anti-dissection rule, the dominant feature test, and the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection ensures that trademark rights remain grounded in commercial reality and consumer perception, rather than abstract or speculative claims of similarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Equally significant is the Court\u2019s emphasis on judicial restraint in interlocutory matters and its recognition of the need to preserve fair competition within branding-intensive industries such as liquor. The decision resists the overextension of trademark monopolies that could otherwise suppress legitimate market entry and consumer choice, while still safeguarding established goodwill where legally justified. In striking this balance, the Court reinforces the principle that trademark law is a shield against deception, not a sword for market dominance, thereby making this judgement a meaningful and enduring contribution to Indian trademark jurisprudence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-takeaways-from-the-judgment\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Takeaways_From_the_Judgment\"><\/span>Key Takeaways From the Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Trademark protection primarily extends to distinctive indicators of trade origin.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Generic or laudatory elements of composite trademarks are not independently protectable unless they have acquired secondary meaning.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The anti-dissection rule remains central to assessing trademark similarity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The dominant feature test must be applied from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts should exercise judicial restraint while considering interim injunctions in trademark disputes.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trademark law protects consumers against deception without creating unjustified monopolies over common expressions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-table-of-key-legal-principles\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Table_of_Key_Legal_Principles\"><\/span>Table of Key Legal Principles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Legal Principle<\/th><th>Significance in the Judgment<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Trademark Infringement<\/td><td>Protection is available only for distinctive source identifiers.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Passing Off<\/td><td>Requires protection of goodwill while preventing consumer deception.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Anti-Dissection Rule<\/td><td>Composite trademarks must be compared as a whole.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Dominant Feature Test<\/td><td>Only the dominant and distinctive portion of a mark may influence consumer perception.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Secondary Meaning<\/td><td>Generic elements receive protection only after acquiring distinctiveness.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Interim Injunction<\/td><td>Courts should interfere only where the established legal tests are satisfied.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-references\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"References\"><\/span>References<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 INSC 981.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine P&amp;H 477.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>United Spirits Ltd. v. Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd., SLP (C) No. 17674\/2023 (SC, 6th September 2023).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O XXXIX rr 1\u20132.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Constitution of India, 1950, art. 136.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trade Marks Act, 1999, \u00a7\u00a7 2(1)(h), 29.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Cadila Health Care Ltd v. Cadila Pharm. Ltd, (2001) 5 SCC 73.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Reckitt &amp; Colman Prods. Ltd. v. Borden Inc., [1990] 1 WLR 491 (HL).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Wander Ltd v. Antox India (P) Ltd, 1990 Supp SCC 727.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad, (2001) 5 SCC 568.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Takeaways\"><\/span>Key Takeaways<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court held that the common and laudatory word <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> cannot be monopolised by a single trademark owner unless it has acquired a distinct secondary meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 INSC 981)<\/em>, the Court ruled that <strong>&#8220;BLENDERS PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> are not deceptively similar when viewed as complete trademarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement reaffirms the anti-dissection rule, requiring courts to compare composite trademarks as a whole instead of isolating individual words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court emphasised the dominant feature test, holding that the dominant source-identifying elements were <strong>&#8220;BLENDERS&#8221;<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;LONDON&#8221;<\/strong>, not the common word <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, depends on the overall commercial impression created by competing marks rather than shared descriptive or laudatory expressions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court found no likelihood of consumer confusion because premium whisky consumers are generally informed, brand-conscious, and capable of distinguishing between competing products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Similarity in a single generic or laudatory word does not automatically establish trademark infringement or passing off under Indian trademark law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement reinforces that passing off claims require proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and a real likelihood of consumer deception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court confirmed that trade dress, including packaging, bottle design, labels, colours, and logos, must be assessed as a whole to determine deceptive similarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision strengthens the principle that common, descriptive, or <em>publici juris<\/em> expressions cannot be exclusively appropriated merely because they appear in a well-known trademark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Reiterating established precedent, the Court held that appellate courts should exercise judicial restraint while reviewing orders granting or refusing interim injunctions in trademark disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling promotes fair competition, prevents the over-extension of trademark monopolies, and protects legitimate commercial use of commonly used words in the marketplace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement serves as an important precedent for businesses, trademark owners, and IP practitioners on the application of the anti-dissection rule, dominant feature doctrine, consumer perception test, and interim injunction principles under Indian trademark law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This decision is likely to become a leading authority on trademark infringement, passing off, composite trademarks, consumer confusion, and exclusive rights over common words in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Overall, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that trademark law protects consumers from deception while ensuring that common language remains available for fair commercial use, thereby balancing intellectual property rights with healthy market competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Summary_of_Key_Legal_Principles\"><\/span>Summary of Key Legal Principles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Legal Principle<\/th><th>Supreme Court&#8217;s Finding<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Monopoly over Common Words<\/td><td>The word &#8220;PRIDE&#8221; cannot be monopolised unless it has acquired a distinct secondary meaning.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Composite Trademark Comparison<\/td><td>Marks must be compared as a whole under the anti-dissection rule.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Dominant Feature Test<\/td><td>&#8220;BLENDERS&#8221; and &#8220;LONDON&#8221; were the dominant source-identifying elements.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trademark Infringement<\/td><td>Overall commercial impression is more important than a shared descriptive or laudatory word.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Consumer Confusion<\/td><td>No likelihood of confusion among informed premium whisky consumers.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Passing Off<\/td><td>Requires goodwill, misrepresentation, and a real likelihood of deception.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trade Dress<\/td><td>Packaging, labels, colours, bottle design, and logos must be evaluated together.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Publici Juris Doctrine<\/td><td>Common or descriptive expressions remain available for legitimate commercial use.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Interim Injunctions<\/td><td>Appellate courts should exercise judicial restraint while reviewing interim orders.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Overall Impact<\/td><td>The judgement balances trademark protection with fair competition and consumer interests.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Highlights\"><\/span>Highlights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The common word <strong>&#8220;PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> cannot be exclusively appropriated without secondary meaning.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>&#8220;BLENDERS PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> and <strong>&#8220;LONDON PRIDE&#8221;<\/strong> were held to be distinct composite trademarks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The judgement reinforces the anti-dissection rule in trademark comparison.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The dominant feature doctrine remains central to infringement analysis.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trademark disputes must focus on overall commercial impression rather than isolated words.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No consumer confusion was established in the premium whisky market.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Passing off requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likely deception.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trade dress should be assessed as a whole.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Common or <em>publici juris<\/em> expressions remain available for fair commercial use.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The ruling strengthens fair competition while preventing overbroad trademark monopolies.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/publici-juris-and-laudatory-terms-non-monopolizability-in-trademark-law\/\">Publici Juris and Laudatory Terms: Non-Monopolizability in Trademark Law<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/religion-and-elections-in-india\/\">Is Religion the Only Option To Win Elections in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/urban-policing-investment-india-vs-global-cities\/\">Investing in Safety: A Comparative Analysis of Urban Policing Across India and the World<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/international-commercial-autonomy-1923-geneva-protocol-and-the-1927-geneva-convention\/\">The Evolution of International Commercial Autonomy: A Definitive Guide to the 1923 Geneva Protocol and the 1927 Geneva Convention<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/registered-trademark-protection-despite-non-use\/\">Registered Trademark Protection Despite Non-Use<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 INSC 981): Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, and the &#8220;Pride&#8221; Trademark 2025 INSC 981 | Supreme Court of India | Decision dated 14 August 2025 Abstract This case analysis examines the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd v. Karanveer<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1659,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[9211],"tags":[5149],"class_list":["post-27567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-intellectual-property-2","tag-intellectual-property"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.9 (Yoast SEO v28.0) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: BLENDER&#039;S PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE (2025 INSC 981) | Anti-Dissection Rule Explained - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Supreme Court explains trademark infringement, passing off, the anti-dissection rule, and why &quot;PRIDE&quot; cannot be exclusively monopolised.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: BLENDER&#039;S PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE (2025 INSC 981) | Anti-Dissection Rule Explained\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court explains trademark infringement, passing off, the anti-dissection rule, and why &quot;PRIDE&quot; cannot be exclusively monopolised.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-09T08:26:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-09T08:29:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"SWATISAGARIKADAS\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"SWATISAGARIKADAS\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"SWATISAGARIKADAS\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/4d311249d8ddb7c8a80f57cd5076fd14\"},\"headline\":\"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: BLENDER&#8217;S PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE (2025 INSC 981) | Anti-Dissection Rule Explained\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-09T08:26:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-09T08:29:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":4269,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: BLENDER'S PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE (2025 INSC 981) | Anti-Dissection Rule Explained - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-09T08:26:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-09T08:29:07+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Supreme Court explains trademark infringement, passing off, the anti-dissection rule, and why \\\"PRIDE\\\" cannot be exclusively monopolised.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Intellectual Property > Can \\\"PRIDE\\\" Be Trademarked? Supreme Court Explains in BLENDERS PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE Judgment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/4d311249d8ddb7c8a80f57cd5076fd14\",\"name\":\"SWATISAGARIKADAS\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f5a57f5879a37c7b17d192e551dcbecb?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f5a57f5879a37c7b17d192e551dcbecb?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f5a57f5879a37c7b17d192e551dcbecb?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"SWATISAGARIKADAS\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/swatisagarikadas\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: BLENDER'S PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE (2025 INSC 981) | Anti-Dissection Rule Explained - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"The Supreme Court explains trademark infringement, passing off, the anti-dissection rule, and why \"PRIDE\" cannot be exclusively monopolised.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: BLENDER'S PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE (2025 INSC 981) | Anti-Dissection Rule Explained","og_description":"The Supreme Court explains trademark infringement, passing off, the anti-dissection rule, and why \"PRIDE\" cannot be exclusively monopolised.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-09T08:26:28+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-09T08:29:07+00:00","author":"SWATISAGARIKADAS","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"SWATISAGARIKADAS","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/"},"author":{"name":"SWATISAGARIKADAS","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/4d311249d8ddb7c8a80f57cd5076fd14"},"headline":"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: BLENDER&#8217;S PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE (2025 INSC 981) | Anti-Dissection Rule Explained","datePublished":"2026-07-09T08:26:28+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-09T08:29:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/"},"wordCount":4269,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Intellectual Property"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/","name":"Supreme Court on Trademark Infringement: BLENDER'S PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE (2025 INSC 981) | Anti-Dissection Rule Explained - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-09T08:26:28+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-09T08:29:07+00:00","description":"The Supreme Court explains trademark infringement, passing off, the anti-dissection rule, and why \"PRIDE\" cannot be exclusively monopolised.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-on-trademark-infringement-blenders-pride-vs-london-pride-2025-insc-981-anti-dissection-rule-explained\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Intellectual Property > Can \"PRIDE\" Be Trademarked? Supreme Court Explains in BLENDERS PRIDE vs LONDON PRIDE Judgment"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/4d311249d8ddb7c8a80f57cd5076fd14","name":"SWATISAGARIKADAS","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f5a57f5879a37c7b17d192e551dcbecb?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f5a57f5879a37c7b17d192e551dcbecb?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f5a57f5879a37c7b17d192e551dcbecb?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"SWATISAGARIKADAS"},"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/swatisagarikadas\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27567","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1659"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27567"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27567\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27622,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27567\/revisions\/27622"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}